From the perspective of the Ministry (and of the Dutch Parliament and tax payers), the information available in their data looks like this:

We can see that the Ministry is running a programme where Amref is an implementing partner. And that’s it. You can click on the image to open it in a separate tab, and click on the activity in the Ministry, to open a page with details about it in d-portal.

Within the HSA, partners agreed each organisation would use a similar structure, using an overall programme activity and underlying project activities for implementation. Schematically:

The partners each worked with AidStream to produce their data, following the guidelines of the Ministry. So does the data reflect this structure?

Not quite yet: a first analysis by the Data4Development team revealed some easy to fix ‘bugs’: it all boils down to being very careful with the identifiers used for organisations and activities.

It is easy to “only” use an internal project number (e.g. “4100” for the overall programme in the system of Amref), but it is important to use the full IATI identifier: this would be NL-KVK-41150298-4100 for that same programme).

Likewise, it is easy to enter either a name or an activity identifier when you actually should use an organisation identifier. If you don’t have an organisation identifier, the name is crucial: any difference in writing technically makes it a separate organisation.

Once these issues (and a few other minor ones) are fixed, we can see a much expanded version of the data from the perspective of the tax payer:

A proper structural view also makes it possible to view funding flows. For instance, each organisation publishes their ‘commitments’: the activities or organisations financed from a programme or project. A rough draft of flows between the activities looks like this (using only transactions with activity identifiers):

Once the links are properly in place, you’re able to check the information you publish: are the disbursements published by one organisation consistent with the incoming funds published by another?

The next step will be to dive deeper into your own data, to look at locations, sectors you work in, countries or regions where you work, and, in the next iteration, results you want to achieve.

Bruce Schneier on why it’s not a good idea to have “priviliged access” to eavesdropping on encrypted communication: The basic problem is that a backdoor is a technical capability — a vulnerability — that is available to anyone who knows about it and has access to it. Surrounding that vulnerability is a procedural system that […]

Separating “citizen – government” and “consumer – supplier” relations: when the government’s system is based on monetizing the data with the private sector. Today India’s supreme court issued a judgement on the constitutionality of Aadhaar, the world’s largest biometric database. Aadhaar is complicated, but here’s the gist: for nearly ten years, public welfare and administrative […]

It’s “Google Chrome” so Google decides on your privacy. The new Firefox, especially with multi-account containers, offers a great alternative. Trust is not a renewable resource If you didn’t respect my lack of consent on the biggest user-facing privacy option in Chrome (and didn’t even notify me that you had stopped respecting it!) why should […]

Another critical look on the blockchain and Bitcoin: Each purported use case — from payments to legal documents, from escrow to voting systems—amounts to a set of contortions to add a distributed, encrypted, anonymous ledger where none was needed. What if there isn’t actually any use for a distributed ledger at all? What if, ten years after […]